Yes! MORE police brutality! Only this time against unarmed peaceful students!

[Ishraqiyun]

Here you can see how the cops infiltrated Occupy Oakland. Send out plaincloths pretending to be protestors.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrvMzqopHH0&feature=player_embedded#!

 

[Ishraqiyun]

Listen to the words of the chief of police in the video too. They infiltrate to get the protestors to do they want.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Are you talking about this video? They hacked the police computer and got his name and address and put it in the video. The "threat" was to make him squeal. They have never physically attacked anyone so I would assume the threat is more in terms of hacking and releasing more information on him. Maybe embarrassing information at that. I can't say I feel sorry from him. Anonymous is good peoples they wont physically attack him. They aren't thugs like some of the police officers that have been going around macing people.

John Pike Pepper Spray Cop message from Anonymous - YouTube

Perhaps THEY won't physically attack him, but what's the point of publishing his information in such a passive/aggressive manner?

I view "Anonymous" as just being a bunch of cowards. They do everything behind a screen. If you got something to say, say it as yourself, not some computer-generated voice behind a tag.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Here you can see how the cops infiltrated Occupy Oakland. Send out plaincloths pretending to be protestors.

That's no worse than ACORN paying people to be protestors.

But we're straying off-topic here. I'm still puzzled by the whole UC thing. If the chancellor was okay with it, why did the campus police still use force? Why are the protestors calling for the resignation of someone who is SUPPORTING them?

 

[Ishraqiyun]

That's no worse than ACORN paying people to be protestors

Possibly. I don't think ACORN assaulted anyone though. We are talking about members of the violent organization that attacked the protestors. They also infiltrated it. If they need an "excuse" to mace they can just have one of their plants say " I will kill you all" and then say they felt threatened.

 

[mpok1519]

I view "Anonymous" as just being a bunch of cowards. They do everything behind a screen. If you got something to say, say it as yourself, not some computer-generated voice behind a tag.

That's how you get your doors kicked in by jack booted thugs and the gestappo. Thy are saying it as theirself, but just with protection providing safety. They'd be stupid to announce their presence to the world without cover. They might as well just shoot their self in the face as a similar act of self destruction.

Many called our revolutionary warriors cowards for their geurilla war tactics; but standing in a straight row is just stupid in war.

Sometimes being cowardly and carrying on the fight to the future is better than bravely jumping heads on into a problem with guns a blazing. It certainly is the smarter of the two decision.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

That's how you get your doors kicked in by jack booted thugs and the gestappo. Thy are saying it as theirself, but just with protection providing safety. They'd be stupid to announce their presence to the world without cover. They might as well just shoot their self in the face as a similar act of self destruction.

Well, they are doing something that's illegal. It's why thieves wear masks when they rob banks.

Many called our revolutionary warriors cowards for their geurilla war tactics; but standing in a straight row is just stupid in war.

What Anonymous is doing isn't fighting a war.

Sometimes being cowardly and carrying on the fight to the future is better than bravely jumping heads on into a problem with guns a blazing. It certainly is the smarter of the two decision.

I'm not sure where publishing someone's information and threatening further escalation suddenly becomes "carrying on the fight", but okay.

When Martin Luther posted his 95 theses against the Catholic Church, he didn't do anonymously.

That kid who stood in front of the tank at Tiananmen Square didn't do it anonymously.

There are many examples of people who were frank and honest in going after something they believed was wrong.

 

[mpok1519]

Hey, I saw an alien spacecraft run down one of the protestors too. It wasn't an accident either as they backed up and ran him over again. Feel free to quote me on that... if it's written, it must be true.

Funny about your quote though... none of the video and pictures taken support it. How could that have possibly happened without a single picture or video of it being captured when you had scores of protestors with phones and cameras standing around?

Again, it's "news" you want to hear, therefore it must be true.

So basically you're calling the eye witness a liar. Way to show character. And yes, the videos do show the police pepper spraying the protesters in theface at point blank range.

 

[mpok1519]

Your power of deduction is truly adventurous.

The comparison is perfectly valid.

Civil rights era protesters who are civilly disobeying the law are met with police brutality. Occupy protesters civilly disobeying the law are also met with police brutality.

How come you support police brutality met to one group of civil disobeyers breaking the law but not another? That makes you a hypocrite.

 

[razeontherock]

I guess what I'm still confused about was whether they were acting illegally or not.

I think you're asking about the students? If campus authorities said they had the right to be there, they weren't there illegally. If Police didn't show up specifically to disperse the crowd, that further reinforces the fact they had the right to be there. And we don't see a Police presence arriving to disperse the crowd, so ...

Now about the legality of the actions of a few policemen? I'm afraid no matter how the law is written, the verdict is a foregone conclusion *smh*

 

[mpok1519]

Well, they are doing something that's illegal. It's why thieves wear masks when they rob banks.

Slaves running away from their masters illegally also used cover to hide their movements. The declaration of independence was also treason. So that's cowardly?

What Anonymous is doing isn't fighting a war.

So it's only okay to hide from one's oppressers in war? Also, if you asked some of them, they'd say they are engaged in war; social war.

I'm not sure where publishing someone's information and threatening further escalation suddenly becomes "carrying on the fight", but okay.

Well, you just have to pull the wool from your eyes to see the significance.

When Martin Luther posted his 95 theses against the Catholic Church, he didn't do anonymously.

And he was met with unjust oppression and persecution. It probably would have been smarter to choose a more stealthy avenue of execution.

That kid who stood in front of the tank at Tiananmen Square didn't do it anonymously.

I may be wrong, but wasn't he crushed by the tank? Also, it's hard to stand in front of a tank anonymously. Impossible even.

There are many examples of people who were frank and honest in going after something they believed was wrong.

Yes, and their goals could have been accomplished without getting hurt.

 

[razeontherock]

The comparison is perfectly valid.

Civil rights era protesters who are civilly disobeying the law are met with police brutality. Occupy protesters civilly disobeying the law are also met with police brutality.

I'm not sure the comparison is valid. Are we witnessing footage of any protesters breaking the law?

 

[mpok1519]

I think you're asking about the students? If campus authorities said they had the right to be there, they weren't there illegally. If Police didn't show up specifically to disperse the crowd, that further reinforces the fact they had the right to be there. And we don't see a Police presence arriving to disperse the crowd, so ...

Now about the legality of the actions of a few policemen? I'm afraid no matter how the law is written, the verdict is a foregone conclusion *smh*

The protesters were legally allowed to be there, and were approved by the university to hold a protest. Some kids set up tents, which was not agreed upon, and then the chancellor ordered the campus police to disperse them.

The chancellor also said that the police's actions were out of line and inappropriate afterwards. I think she should still resign since the blood is On her hands as the official who oversaw the brutality.

 

[mpok1519]

I'm not sure the comparison is valid. Are we witnessing footage of any protesters breaking the law?

I'm going by the police reports reporting illegal activity, although, I don't necessarily agree that what crimes are being committed are really crimes. Sitting down and civilly disobeying a police's orders to leave, to me, has attributes of illegality just as stupid as a black man occupying a whites only establishment and not leaving when the police order it.

 

[jameseb]

So basically you're calling the eye witness a liar. Way to show character. And yes, the videos do show the police pepper spraying the protesters in theface at point blank range.

No, it did not show them putting the pepper spray in their mouth as you attested to.

Character? What has character got to do with accepting something as truth just because someone said it was so? You don't believe my story that aliens ran over a protestor? What poor character you must have then.

The comparison is perfectly valid.

No, it is not. In fact, you were building a straw man argument. Perhaps you should refresh yourself on the subject.


Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Civil rights era protesters who are civilly disobeying the law are met with police brutality. Occupy protesters civilly disobeying the law are also met with police brutality.

How come you support police brutality met to one group of civil disobeyers breaking the law but not another? That makes you a hypocrite.

You're comparrison is so absurdly flawed. One has to do with a group of citizens seeking equality before the law, the other doesn't. Try to figure out which is which.

 

[mpok1519]

No, it did not show them putting the pepper spray in their mouth as you attested to.

Point blank to the face: our mouth is on your face; if you're point blank at the face pepper spray will be sprayed in the mouth as with the rest of the face's attributes as a result. You're really arguing this? That's akin to arguing that they weren't sprayed in the eyes or any other facial feature.

Character? What has character got to do with accepting something as truth just because someone said it was so? You don't believe my story that aliens ran over a protestor? What poor character you must have then.

The difference is only one of them happened. Your character shows by fabricating a false account.

No, it is not. In fact, you were building a straw man argument. Perhaps you should refresh yourself on the subject.

The irony kills me; youre the one who needs the refresher course; you simply have heard other people use the term strawman and feel a need to regurgitate the term as if you know what you're talking about.


[quoteYou're comparrison is so absurdly flawed. One has to do with a group of citizens seeking equality before the law, the other doesn't. Try to figure out which is which.[/QUOTE]

the comparison is of two groups of people invoking the same constitutional right to peacefully assemble and being met with police brutality. Why or what for they are assembling is not apart of the criteria of comparison. You display the habits of a hypocrite by insisting one set of excessive force and brutality is justified but not another.

Stay in school bud.

 

[razeontherock]

then the chancellor ordered the campus police to disperse them.

Ooh, I missed that part. Yah, that's no good changing the rules of engagement once officers are deployed. They should have all been brought back, re-grouped, re-outfitted, and re-appeared; ready to clear the place and announcing their intention. You're still talking about the vid in the OP? Or is this another location entirely?

 

[razeontherock]

You're comparrison is so absurdly flawed. One has to do with a group of citizens seeking equality before the law, the other doesn't. Try to figure out which is which.

Pretty fatuitous comment there

 

[mpok1519]

Ooh, I missed that part. Yah, that's no good changing the rules of engagement once officers are deployed. They should have all been brought back, re-grouped, re-outfitted, and re-appeared; ready to clear the place and announcing their intention. You're still talking about the vid in the OP? Or is this another location entirely?

I'm referring to the recent UC Davis incident. Sorry if I commented on the wrong thing.

 

[razeontherock]

Thanks. You're fine, there's just a lot to try to keep up with! but refresh my memory, weren't people calling for the resignation of the Chancellor at Berklee, too?